The system is working
Since the January 30th elections, many people who opposed the invasion of Iraq and oppose the ongoing military occupation have found it difficult to overcome the sophistry of those who ordered the invasion, and their ideologues. George Bush's government "hailed the Iraqi elections as a success that vindicated its strategy of spreading democracy in the Middle East" the Financial Times reported the next day (Guy Dinmore and Ben Hall, FT, 31 Jan 2005, p. 3). "The force of freedom...was felt throughout Iraq today" the Daily Telegraph quoted Tony Blair as saying. (Jack Fairweather and Anton La Guardia, Daily Telegraph, 31 Jan 2005, p. 1).
But how about American and British people? They were not, apparently, quite so enthusiastic about the whole thing. Amid muted admissions from "Western experts" that "the vote wasn't perfect", (Ben Hall and Roula Khalaf, FT, 31 Jan 2005, p. 1) the FT reported that "Opinion polls in both the UK and the US show a growing majority want their governments to start pulling out troops, whether or not the election produces a stable government in Baghdad." (Dinmore and Hall) The same, apparently, goes for the Iraqis. "Tens of thousands of Iraqis marked the second anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein by marching here in the capital on Saturday to demand the withdrawal of American forces" the New York Times reports. "One of the main chants of the morning, echoed by thousands, was: 'No America, no Saddam! Yes to Islam!'" Pretty unequivocal I think.
How then might we explain the widely-reported enthusiasm for participation in the elections from Iraqis, and their simultaneous opposition to the occupation. If the elections, representing the Iraqis new found democracy and freedom were a direct result of the occupation, why such strong and vocal (if, for the most part - as illustrated yesterday - peaceful) opposition?
The editors of the Financial Times might give us a clue. "The triumphalists in Washington who now claim total vindication for their almost totally bungled strategy are right to point out that these elections would not have taken place under Mr Hussein. But they should reflect that the reason they took place was the insistence of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who vetoed three schemes by the US-led occupation authorities to shelve or dilute them. Mr Sistani is the man who has held the Iraqi ring." (Leader, FT, March 10th 2005, p. 10). Not quite what Tony and George would like us to believe, but safe enough tucked away near the back of the business news paper, highly unlikely to be read by anyone who take seriously the propaganda about the occupation.
Today's NYT quotes a student whose views echos those found in serious opinion polls: '"We are asking that the occupier leave our country," said Amer Shihab, a university student who had come from Kut in southern Iraq. "Iraq now has enough competent forces to maintain security by itself."'
Of course, even those of us keenest to see an end to the occupation can agree with that analysis. The level of violence and instability in Iraq remains shocking, despite recent reports of less incidents per day.
How to solve the situation? Those who strongly oppose the occupation advocate sending UN forces. In principle, this is not a bad idea, but in practice, it is highly problematic. UN forces would be unlikely to significantly reduce the level of violence because the UN, like most institutions, are viewed by Iraqis (and most of the global population) as subordinate to - in fact, tools of - the global hegemon and its allies. The UN lacks sufficient credibility to oversee Iraq's development, because it would be seen as occupation by proxy - understandably, given Iraq's recent history.
The situation in Iraq should be a stark reminder to us all that the post-war international institutions increasingly lack credibility in most of the world, where they are seen as tools of the powerful. George Monbiot (see particularly his book "Age of Consent" and also his most recent Guardian piece) thinks this is positive: at some point, most of the globe is going to become so fed up with being exploited by the masters (that's us, folks) that they will render the international institutions - designed to reinforce the power of the USA and its allies - totally unworkable.
I don't like the sound of this too much though, and find Monbiot's certainty that tearing down old institutions will necessarily result in the creation of democratic ones, a little too dialectic. To avoid chaos, I propose that what is necessary is for alternative (parallel) democratic international institutions to be created. With sufficient participation, they might achieve such power that they become recognised as the truly legitimate international arbiters, with the world's powerful states forced to concede that the existing instutions are now truly "irrelevant" and join the rest of the globe.
A project of such epic proportions that it's unrealistic? Well perhaps, but a better plan than rejoicing - as Monbiot does - at the efforts of the powerful nations of the world to make international institutions pure instruments of their power, while revelling in ones dubious certainty that this will necessarily result in the total collapse of the UN, the WTO, the IMF, World Bank and all the rest of it followed quickly by the peaceful emergence of democratic alternatives. So why is my dreaming better than Monbiot's? Because Monbiot advocates destruction in the ludicrous hope that something better will suddenly emerge (kind of like the Russian revolutionaries, it seems) while I'm advocating building something better, then replacing what we have.
Can any of this help the Iraqis? Not as quickly as help is needed. If the country is to stand a chance of functioning, it needs British and American troops to leave as quickly as possible. For now, I think, the UN will have to do.
But how about American and British people? They were not, apparently, quite so enthusiastic about the whole thing. Amid muted admissions from "Western experts" that "the vote wasn't perfect", (Ben Hall and Roula Khalaf, FT, 31 Jan 2005, p. 1) the FT reported that "Opinion polls in both the UK and the US show a growing majority want their governments to start pulling out troops, whether or not the election produces a stable government in Baghdad." (Dinmore and Hall) The same, apparently, goes for the Iraqis. "Tens of thousands of Iraqis marked the second anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein by marching here in the capital on Saturday to demand the withdrawal of American forces" the New York Times reports. "One of the main chants of the morning, echoed by thousands, was: 'No America, no Saddam! Yes to Islam!'" Pretty unequivocal I think.
How then might we explain the widely-reported enthusiasm for participation in the elections from Iraqis, and their simultaneous opposition to the occupation. If the elections, representing the Iraqis new found democracy and freedom were a direct result of the occupation, why such strong and vocal (if, for the most part - as illustrated yesterday - peaceful) opposition?
The editors of the Financial Times might give us a clue. "The triumphalists in Washington who now claim total vindication for their almost totally bungled strategy are right to point out that these elections would not have taken place under Mr Hussein. But they should reflect that the reason they took place was the insistence of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who vetoed three schemes by the US-led occupation authorities to shelve or dilute them. Mr Sistani is the man who has held the Iraqi ring." (Leader, FT, March 10th 2005, p. 10). Not quite what Tony and George would like us to believe, but safe enough tucked away near the back of the business news paper, highly unlikely to be read by anyone who take seriously the propaganda about the occupation.
Today's NYT quotes a student whose views echos those found in serious opinion polls: '"We are asking that the occupier leave our country," said Amer Shihab, a university student who had come from Kut in southern Iraq. "Iraq now has enough competent forces to maintain security by itself."'
Of course, even those of us keenest to see an end to the occupation can agree with that analysis. The level of violence and instability in Iraq remains shocking, despite recent reports of less incidents per day.
How to solve the situation? Those who strongly oppose the occupation advocate sending UN forces. In principle, this is not a bad idea, but in practice, it is highly problematic. UN forces would be unlikely to significantly reduce the level of violence because the UN, like most institutions, are viewed by Iraqis (and most of the global population) as subordinate to - in fact, tools of - the global hegemon and its allies. The UN lacks sufficient credibility to oversee Iraq's development, because it would be seen as occupation by proxy - understandably, given Iraq's recent history.
The situation in Iraq should be a stark reminder to us all that the post-war international institutions increasingly lack credibility in most of the world, where they are seen as tools of the powerful. George Monbiot (see particularly his book "Age of Consent" and also his most recent Guardian piece) thinks this is positive: at some point, most of the globe is going to become so fed up with being exploited by the masters (that's us, folks) that they will render the international institutions - designed to reinforce the power of the USA and its allies - totally unworkable.
I don't like the sound of this too much though, and find Monbiot's certainty that tearing down old institutions will necessarily result in the creation of democratic ones, a little too dialectic. To avoid chaos, I propose that what is necessary is for alternative (parallel) democratic international institutions to be created. With sufficient participation, they might achieve such power that they become recognised as the truly legitimate international arbiters, with the world's powerful states forced to concede that the existing instutions are now truly "irrelevant" and join the rest of the globe.
A project of such epic proportions that it's unrealistic? Well perhaps, but a better plan than rejoicing - as Monbiot does - at the efforts of the powerful nations of the world to make international institutions pure instruments of their power, while revelling in ones dubious certainty that this will necessarily result in the total collapse of the UN, the WTO, the IMF, World Bank and all the rest of it followed quickly by the peaceful emergence of democratic alternatives. So why is my dreaming better than Monbiot's? Because Monbiot advocates destruction in the ludicrous hope that something better will suddenly emerge (kind of like the Russian revolutionaries, it seems) while I'm advocating building something better, then replacing what we have.
Can any of this help the Iraqis? Not as quickly as help is needed. If the country is to stand a chance of functioning, it needs British and American troops to leave as quickly as possible. For now, I think, the UN will have to do.
posted by UK plc at 10:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home